Is China Preparing for War?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Sandman


I very much doubt this is the case. No country can ever turn almost a third of its population into useful soldiers.

Many were not combat personel. Remember that their are a tremendous amount of administrative, logistical, and mechanical positions. Not to mention cooks, housekeepers, etc... Combat troops were at approx 10-12 million IIRC.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by DataAeolus


World War II was one of best things ever happened to Germany and Japan economically speaking. The war destroyed their infrastructure then during the aftermath, the Americans actually helped their former enemies to rebuild. Without any restraints that would have been present if the old infrastructure was still there, Germany and Japan were able to basically rebuild everything from bottom to top resulting in an infrastructure more effective than others including Americans'.

This is true, but that infrastructure has been aging now for close to half a century. The US infrastructure is probably more modern now than eithier due to cyclical replacement.

[Barinthus]

In Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers, there was this neat passage in which characters compared the military in early 20th century to the military in 23rd century. In 23rd century, everybody fights - even the cook and so on while in 20th century, for every soldier who fought, there was like 50 people to enable him to fight such as cooks, quartermasters, and other support elements. I wish I had a copy here so I could quote it for you guys.

But yeah like Plato said, not all were combat personnel - majority was the support.

[David Floyd]

Combat troops were at approx 10-12 million IIRC.

Wrong, the entire US Army was in that range, but most of those people were in support roles. The US only had 89 Army and 6 Marine divisions during the war, and if you assume an average of 15,000-20,000 men per divisions (many of whom aren't even combat personnel), you don't even approach 10 million.

[Shi Huangdi]

Urban Ranger:

Iraq and Vietnam are bad comparisons as the objective there was to take and hold hostile or semi-hostile territory, which is difficult with modern guerilla warfare. And yes, the United State would not be able to take over China, the USN and USAF would be able to bring China to it's knees.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Wrong, the entire US Army was in that range, but most of those people were in support roles. The US only had 89 Army and 6 Marine divisions during the war, and if you assume an average of 15,000-20,000 men per divisions (many of whom aren't even combat personnel), you don't even approach 10 million.

After researching the subject, I have found you are quite right (another myth of my youth dispelled!). Civilian population in 1945 was 127 million and total nearly 13 million in military population. Given same ratios, US could field military population of 30 million or about 10 % of population. Apologies also to Sandman.

[:) Smiley]

Under what situation would we need to field 30 million soldiers? A soldier today can do the work of at least 10 back in '45.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Everybody will be launching nuclear missiles at the US if the US even contemplates in making such a thread, Floyd. Better to get rid of a madman first.

Likewise, everybody will be launching a nuke at the next person to make a PRC/Taiwan "thread", right?

[Ted Striker]

Nice hat

I'd hit it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Robert Accinelli has written a thorough and thought-provoking account of U.S. relations with the Republic of China (relocated to Taiwan in December 1949) at the dawn of the Cold War. Through a chronological narrative, Accinelli retraces the complicated interplay of events that led the Truman and Eisenhower administrations toward the "two China" approach that eventually dominated American foreign policy. In this first full-length analysis of America's growing security interest in Taiwan, the author argues convincingly that the U.S. made no formal commitment to the island and that half-measures and pragmatism dominated American diplomacy. While the casual student of U.S.-East Asian relations might suspect that the Truman administration favored establishing a noncommunist outpost off the Chinese mainland, Accinelli correctly concludes that Washington was far more cautious in its dealing with Chiang Kai-shek and the nationalists. Instead, he argues that successive U.S. administrations kept military, economic, and political commitments to Taiwan limited and out of official channels.

In the aftermath of Mao Tse-tung's victory in China, American policymakers had conceded that Taiwan and the surrounding offshore islands would eventually fall to the Communists. The "interventionists" in the State Department suggested, however, that this gloomy prediction was premature. In mid-1950, this group of senior State Department officials rallied together, calling for a regional policy review. The "interventionists"--led by Dean Rusk, Paul Nitze, and John Foster Dulles--concluded that Taiwan was salvageable if given proper U.S. support. Rusk, then the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, spearheaded a move in Washington to provide Taiwan with at least token military assurances in the early years. The "interventionists" convinced others in Washington of Taiwan's strategic military importance and its psychological political value, and as a result, the commitment grew over time.

According to Accinelli, there were other factors that led the Truman administration to reevaluate its Taiwan guarantee. The growing turmoil in Korea and Southeast Asia provided the regional context while Senator Joseph P. McCarthy's anticommunist crusade added certain domestic pressures. Accinelli contends that Truman and Eisenhower eventually settled for the "two China" approach, ensuring Taiwan's security and survival under Peking's gaze. At the same time, however, Washington made clear that there would be no counterattack against the mainland and no future provocative military action by the nationalists.

Accinelli bases his conclusions on meticulous archival research and a thorough review of existing literature. This book is "old fashioned" diplomatic history at its best and it should join Nancy Bernkopf Tucker's Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the United States as the standard work on the subject. Although the detail might overwhelm some undergraduates, graduate students and specialists will find it useful, and perhaps even essential reading.


http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m.../article.jhtml

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by PLATO


Before last START talks, US had almost 11,000 warheads. Do you really think the press just missed the disposal of all that bomb grade plutonium? I'm guessing they are "being stored for disposal" at Fort Hood. (Bye Bye China if you are stupid enough to launch. Ha...China fires 20 nukes...15 are viable launches...10 are shot down or badly miss tarkets...5 hit. US retaliates with 10,000 nukes...Former SE Asia now known as the East Persian sea.)

The China ICBM carry 25 megton Temonuclear warhead(H-Bomb) than EMP (electic Magnetic Pulse) would ruin our computise ecomony real fast, powerline will be melt by than EMP tham power generator at power compancies will be either melt or burnout or both over awide part of America. Huge firestorm will rage across our national park's and forest and cities. Looking at than hight atitude 25 megton bust will cause 3rd degrecc burn on people up to 90 or more miles away(the worst time of burn possible) while at the same time the light from that themonuclear blast will blind people permanant as far as 90 or more miles. The EMP can traveler thousand mile or more from than single Themonuclear blast. Plus China is alway impoven they ICBM and there is agood change that they range is greater than we think. That why nobody test big H-bomb anymore. The Island we test our first H-Bomb on cannot support human habition yet and that test was done 44 years ago, we think that Island might be unliveable for the next few thousand years to come. We donot have than Anti-missile Defense system yet, they cannot stop very missiles, in fact in our rig test if did work every well. There are way to make than ICBM harder to shoot down.

[Nubclear]

I'm only partially reading the last post, but if you people are arguing whether a Chinese nuke would destroy the US economy....

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Likewise, everybody will be launching a nuke at the next person to make a PRC/Taiwan "thread", right?

Good idea.

Nice avator, too.

Oh, how much are the bruises going for these days?

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Taiwan would repel any invasion coming from China as it stands now due to the severe lack of anything resembling sea lift capacity. Be more worried about Taiwan in a decade or so.

I hear thought my Intelligence Network that China have away to put than huge force on Taiwan without any huge sealift capacity.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
I'm only partially reading the last post, but if you people are arguing whether a Chinese nuke would destroy the US economy....

There are basely three type of nuclear weapon on Earth right now.

!.) Fission bomb call commonly A-bomb useing either Pu-239(99.99 total amount) or U-235.

2.) Fission-fusion bomb (called clean H-bomb compare to the next type of nuclear weapon) use than atomic bomb to reach tempurate where hydrogen can fuse into helium it release alot of neutrons. Common call low yield H-bomb.

3.) Fission-fusion-fission bomb (call dirtly H-bomb and are also hight yeild themonuclear bomb) it use than atomic bomb to reach tempurate hight enought to make hydrogen fuse into Helium than the U-238 caseing is hits by enought hight speed neutron to actiate to start than fission reaction which is stronger than the fusion blast as they use 1000 kg to 2000 kg of U-238 in the caseing.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
I hear thought my Intelligence Network that China have away to put than huge force on Taiwan without any huge sealift capacity.

You know I'm honestly trying to figure out if this is a joke....

Barring a relatively small amount of Chinese troops paradropped from the air that would be highly vulnerable to Taiwan's airforce during their transit to boot, just how the heck is China going to put a huge force in Taiwan without a large sealift capacity???!!!

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Mordoch

You know I'm honestly trying to figure out if this is a joke....

Barring a relatively small amount of Chinese troops paradropped from the air that would be highly vulnerable to Taiwan's airforce during their transit to boot, just how the heck is China going to put a huge force in Taiwan without a large sealift capacity???!!!

They also arenot going to be airlift either, than they are going to reach they target in amoured vehicle of some type.

[Eli]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff


They also arenot going to be airlift either, than they are going to reach they target in amoured vehicle of some type.

A submarine?

----

At this very moment, 10 millions Chinese slave laborers are digging the world's largest tunnel, from the Chinese coast to the center of Taipei.

[POTUS]

Originally posted by Eli


A submarine?

----

At this very moment, 10 millions Chinese slave laborers are digging the world's largest tunnel, from the Chinese coast to the center of Taipei.

You didn't know?

I thought everybody knew about the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy Tunnel.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Come to think of it, Taiwan almost sounds like China's version of America's Cuba — a thorn in its side in terms of how it's governed.

PRECISELY!

[DaShi]

What? You people are still talking about this? I'm bored of it already. I'm really into this string now. Ooh. Stringy!

[Cruddy]

To secure peace is
To prepare for war.

I reckon you're OK. Generally most wars start with a couple of days warning with "Diplomatic Crisis" stamped on them.

Any posters living close to Army ranges will appreciate just what a blasted nuisance training exercises are - but I kind of miss the distant thud of arty in the distance.

[The Mad Viking]

bla bla bla

Here is what your fearless leader of Democracy had to say, just before Christmas:

sourc: Boston Globe

Bush, in his remarks Tuesday, was responding to recent moves by Taiwan's president, Chen Shui-bian, to call a "defensive" referendum asking voters whether they want China to withdraw the hundreds of missiles it has deployed within striking distance of Taiwan.

Western analysts have said Chen's move was based on a desire to heighten tensions between Taiwan and China in the run-up to Taiwan's presidential election on March 20. In 2000, Chen benefited from increased tension with China and became the first opposition candidate to win Taiwan's presidency.

China has accused Chen of using the referendum as a ploy to push Taiwan a step closer to formal independence from China. Beijing has threatened to attack the island, which it considers part of China, if it declares independence.

"The so-called referendum is quite deceptive and dangerous," Liu said. "Its aim is to separate Taiwan from the mainland. China will never tolerate such activity."

In Taiwan, Chen said he believed that Washington eventually would support the referendum, a widely held belief making the rounds on the island. "I believe America is a democratic country," he said in an interview broadcast on CNN, according to a presidential office statement. "It will absolutely support and encourage the public opinion of Taiwan's 23 million people and their pursuit of deeper democracy and peace."

Bush said the United States opposes "any unilateral decision by either China or Taiwan to change the status quo." He added: "The comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan indicate that he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally to change the status quo, which we oppose."

I guess there is no oil on Taiwan.

[DaShi]

Good. You can always trust President Bush.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Eli
At this very moment, 10 millions Chinese slave laborers are digging the world's largest tunnel, from the Chinese coast to the center of Taipei.

It's so funny because it sounds plausible.

[Eli]

[Combat Ingrid]

I actually heard some time ago that China planned to build a tunnel to Taiwan to "bring them closer"

[mindseye]

Originally posted by POTUS

I thought everybody knew about the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy Tunnel.

This set me to thinking. I recalled the amazing tunnels North Korea has constructed, the largest big enough to handle a jeep. Next, I considered China's ability to pull-off gigantic-scale construction works, from the Great Wall down to the Three Gorges dam.

But then I remembered the safety record of China's mining industry, did some quick math, and realized that China doesn't have enough people for this project.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
bla bla bla

Here is what your fearless leader of Democracy had to say, just before Christmas:

I guess there is no oil on Taiwan.

Actually Bush has made it pretty clear to China that we will intervene militarily if China invades Taiwan. Its mostly that the US doesn't want Taiwan provoking anything by declaring independance either.

President George W. Bush warned China Tuesday not to use coercion or force against Taiwan and also warned Taiwan not to follow a path of a unilaterally declaring independence from the mainland, senior administration officials said.

Bush's temporary lifting on long-standing ambiguity on the China-Taiwan situation came in public and private statements during almost two hours of talks with visiting Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao

"I think the president made a very clear comment in regard to the question of Taiwan and the cross-strait relationship (with China)," an official said on condition of anonymity. "We are in no way abandoning support for Taiwan's democracy or for the spread of freedom. However, we are seeing developments on both sides of the strait, forcing us to drop some of the ambiguity that has been in the policy in the past."

The official said Bush told Wen "in no uncertain terms that we, the United States, would have to get involved if China tried to use coercion or force to unilaterally change the status of Taiwan."...

"He made it clear: 'Look, if you try to use force or coercion against the Taiwanese, we're going to be there.'"

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...1506-6555r.htm

[:) Smiley]

Now why can't we have a "Two Palestines" approach in the Middle East?